Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Lego's 0.002mm specification and its implications for manufacturing (2025)

thewave.engineer

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

221–230 of 343 posts

Re: Lego's 0.002mm specification and its implications for manufacturing (2025)

#221

Post by panzagl »

johnisgood wrote: post #205
Aurornis wrote: post #113

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The existence of specialty sets doesn’t subtract from creating building. My kids get some of the specialty sets, build them, then hours later they’re either taken apart or heavily modified. The specialty sets can provide some interesting unique pieces too. My kids have a photographic memory of each of those special pieces and which set they came from. They’ll remember them and search until they find that exact piece.…

Off-topic, but: > My kids have a photographic memory How do you know it is photographic memory? More than one of your kids have it? Do you know why or what may have contributed to its development?

> My kids have a photographic memory of each of those special pieces and which set they came from.

Read the whole sentence- this is clearly an informal use of 'photographic memory' to indicate that his kids are really into Lego and keep track of details in the way only kids can.

Re: Lego's 0.002mm specification and its implications for manufacturing (2025)

#222

Post by sixo »

potatototoo99 wrote: post #156
mmustapic wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Lego was always expensive, you can compare prices adjusted for inflation. For example, the 1979 Galaxy Explorer https://brickset.com/sets/497-1 > was around $32, that's $144 today. The reimagined set from 2023 https://brickset.com/sets/10497-1 > was sold at $99, $106 today. Not only it is cheaper, but much larger and with many more pieces.

Yes, they have kept up with inflation, and that is the problem. Manufactured goods like Lego bricks should fall in price through innovation in processes, scale, etc. What does raise higher than the average inflation should be be labor-intensive products/services. In other words, it feels much stranger today how expensive Legos are compared to 47 years ago.

Prices are constrained by demand moreso than by cost of production. Lego pieces are expensive because they can be, they still sell, and this is largely due to the quality. As long as the quality moat persists, they can charge as much as people will pay, and--good for them!

That you personally would prefer lower prices does not mean they "should" be lower. Those lower costs of production, to Lego company, "should" mean higher profits, not lower prices, and again--good for them!

Re: Lego's 0.002mm specification and its implications for manufacturing (2025)

#223

Post by sbcorvus »

mmustapic wrote: post #62
scatbot wrote: post #12

Lego is one of those companies that is simultaneously amazing and kind of sucks. On one hand the core product is incredible. The tolerances on the bricks are micrometer-level precision and the fact that pieces from the 70s snap perfectly into ones made today is mind blowing. On the other hand, a lot what the company does today just sucks. Set prices are outrageous. Printed bricks get replaced with stickers and many s…

Lego was always expensive, you can compare prices adjusted for inflation. For example, the 1979 Galaxy Explorer https://brickset.com/sets/497-1 > was around $32, that's $144 today. The reimagined set from 2023 https://brickset.com/sets/10497-1 > was sold at $99, $106 today. Not only it is cheaper, but much larger and with many more pieces.

Thanks for this reminder about the cost variable.

Re: Lego's 0.002mm specification and its implications for manufacturing (2025)

#224

Post by wffurr »

antonyh wrote: post #72
Thlom wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You can still buy LEGO Classic which is just a bunch of bricks.

From experience there's a motivation, almost a compulsion, to follow the instructions to build the cool thing. Then... they sit there, those bricks never taken apart. That compulsion doesn't seem present in freeform building, and there's been zero interest in it in our household. I know that's not true for all, but it seems like a lost art. Maybe it's because the IP sets show how but not the why it's constructed in a…

When I was a kid and I got a new set, I would build it according to the instructions, play with it, and then disassemble it and sort it into my brick collection. Occasionally I would get the instructions back out and re-build it, and other times I would kitbash and make random cool stuff.

My parents still have all my Legos from the 90s, including the instructions, and I've been able to rebuild a bunch of the space ships with translucent neon accents. It's pretty sweet and my kids love it.

Re: Lego's 0.002mm specification and its implications for manufacturing (2025)

#225

Post by bluescrn »

bombcar wrote: post #188
bluescrn wrote: post #132

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Classic Technic was brilliant, but when they switched to 'studless Technic' it became far more difficult to build creatively with it (even if it enabled far more intricate builds with complex mechanisms, like the gearboxes in the supercar sets) - there was no natural 'up' direction any more, and building anything became more of a 3D logic puzzle than just building with bricks. Real shame that they discontinued Mindst…

I recall but can't find that there was a red technic car built with studs before the panels/studless took over - that thing didn't look terribly realistic but it DID look like lego.

Probably this one: https://brickset.com/sets/8865-1/Test-Car

The difference in the instructions between classic and modern sets is interesting too, instructions for both the main and alternate build in just 38 pages. Compared to the modern instructions, which often add just a couple of parts per page.

Re: Lego's 0.002mm specification and its implications for manufacturing (2025)

#226

Post by bntr »

foobarian wrote: post #80
scatbot wrote: post #12

Lego is one of those companies that is simultaneously amazing and kind of sucks. On one hand the core product is incredible. The tolerances on the bricks are micrometer-level precision and the fact that pieces from the 70s snap perfectly into ones made today is mind blowing. On the other hand, a lot what the company does today just sucks. Set prices are outrageous. Printed bricks get replaced with stickers and many s…

Oddly enough I found the Duplo line much more fun to play with as our kid went through the blocks years. You could build something substantial with fewer block clicks, there were fewer different types of blocks, they were less fiddly and prone to vanishing into rugs/carpets, etc. Also the proper Legos tended to be sets which makes it very stressful to mix them into a misc bag.

Duplo is also compatible with regular Lego. We used Duplo for the big structure and Lego on top for details. Great way to build huge stuff quickly.

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/04/LEGO-kom...

Re: Lego's 0.002mm specification and its implications for manufacturing (2025)

#227

Post by Spooky23 »

mmustapic wrote: post #62
scatbot wrote: post #12

Lego is one of those companies that is simultaneously amazing and kind of sucks. On one hand the core product is incredible. The tolerances on the bricks are micrometer-level precision and the fact that pieces from the 70s snap perfectly into ones made today is mind blowing. On the other hand, a lot what the company does today just sucks. Set prices are outrageous. Printed bricks get replaced with stickers and many s…

Lego was always expensive, you can compare prices adjusted for inflation. For example, the 1979 Galaxy Explorer https://brickset.com/sets/497-1 > was around $32, that's $144 today. The reimagined set from 2023 https://brickset.com/sets/10497-1 > was sold at $99, $106 today. Not only it is cheaper, but much larger and with many more pieces.

Yes! We were never bougie enough to get Lego, I played with Sears bricks growing up.

Re: Lego's 0.002mm specification and its implications for manufacturing (2025)

#228

Post by jlv2 »

joering2 wrote: post #177
yubainu wrote: post #151

[flagged]

there is a solution for that, its called flip-flops. But it would be hilarious if LEGO would add a pair in one of their sets :)

https://www.lego.com/en-us/product/brick-clog-5010203

Pricing is on-par for LEGO.

Re: Lego's 0.002mm specification and its implications for manufacturing (2025)

#229

Post by MisterTea »

fwip wrote: post #125
voidUpdate wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Do you mean between black and light grey? Light grey pins have always been the kind you use for rotating connections (low friction), whereas black was for non-rotating ones (high friction). Newer blue pins are also high friction, IIRC. I haven't bought new lego technic in a while, so I don't know if there's been any new colours added EDIT: I think I also had some dark grey pins, but I don't remember if they were high…

My memory of twenty years ago says the dark-grey pins were 1 stud wide on one side, and half-wide on the other, and low-friction like the light-grey ones.

I think they were light grey as well. They were commonly used to make cranks out of the 4185 belt wheel or attach objects to the wheel.

Re: Lego's 0.002mm specification and its implications for manufacturing (2025)

#230

Post by orthoxerox »

cruffle_duffle wrote: post #192
Xerox9213 wrote: post #140

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Buying buckets of used bricks is pretty cheap, too. I bought an adult's old lifetime collection for $30 CAD. My 2 year old son and I are still sorting them.

Sorting Lego is such a pain in the ass. I have like a huge stash from when I was a kid. Back then we just had it all in a few tubs and dug to find a part. But somehow now I feel I must sort them… but the “right way” is ill defined and kind of sucks the joy out of playing (especially disassembling) And there is no “right way” that I’ve even found. Sort by color and now the little pieces fall to the bottom and are hard…

Why sort by color if human eyes (unless colorblind) are great at recognizing different colors? Back when I was a kid, I used the big tub approach (with the Spyrius base octant as my shovel).
Post reply on HN